Law Commons^™

Airdropping Justice: The Constitutionality Of Service Of Process Via Non-Fungible Token, Jenifer Jackson

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Perbandingan Penyelesaian Sengketa Lingkungan Hidup Melalui Mekanisme Gugatan Warga Negara (Citizen Lawsuit) Di Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat, Listyalaras Nurmedina

"Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI

A citizen lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by citizens against state officials that cause negligence and cause losses. This negligence is an act against the law (onrechtmatige overhead daad), where the state is ordered to improve its performance and issue a policy for general governing policies (regeling). It is intended to ensure that the negligence that previously occurred will not be repeated. A citizen lawsuit is almost similar to a class action lawsuit because it has the same thing, namely that the lawsuit is filed involving the interests of many people represented by one or more people. The difference is …

28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …

The Venue Shuffle: Forum Selection Clauses & Erisa, Christine P. Bartholomew, James A. Wooten

Journal Articles

Forum selection clauses are ubiquitous. Historically, the judiciary was hostile to contracts limiting a plaintiff’s venue options. The tide has since turned. Today, lower courts routinely enforce such clauses. This Article challenges this reflexive response in the special context of ERISA cases. It mines ERISA’s statutory text, rich legislative history, and historical context to supply an in-depth exploration of ERISA’s unique policy goal of providing employees “ready access to the Federal courts.” The Article then explains how forum selection clauses undermine this goal and thus should be invalid under controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Justiciability, Access To Justice And The Development Of Constitutional Law In Canada, Lorne Sossin, Gerard J. Kennedy

Articles & Book Chapters

Concentrating on Canadian experience, specifically litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the ‘Charter’), this article seeks to reconcile the access to justice benefits of summary procedures with the government litigant’s duty to act in the public interest (or as a ‘model litigant’) and uphold the rule of law. Though acknowledging the benefits that can result from the use of summary procedures to end litigation, the authors observe that compliance with strict requirements in procedural law are frequently dispensed with in the Charter context. In fact, summary procedures can have a devastating effect on the development of Charter …

Deconstructing Juryless Fact-Finding In Civil Cases, Shaakirrah R. Sanders

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In many states, legislatures have mandated juryless fact-finding in common law–based civil cases by imposing compensatory damage caps that effectively lessen the jury’s traditional and historic role as injury valuator. The primary purpose of most caps was to reign in “excessive” civil jury verdicts, which allegedly caused “skyrocketing” medical malpractice insurance premiums and litigation costs. But no legislatively imposed cap is triggered by a preliminary finding of excessiveness. Trial judges have no authority to determine whether application of a cap is just or fair to the (often) severely injured plaintiff. Despite a shared interpretive methodology with regards to the nature …

De Facto Class Actions: Plaintiff-And Defendant-Oriented Injunctions In Voting Rights, Election Law, And Other Constitutional Cases, Michael T. Morley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cross-Cutting Conflicts: Developments In The Use Of Norwich Orders In Internet Defamation Cases, Robert Currie

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The anonymity afforded to those wishing to post commentary on the internet has given rise to a number of procedural issues in Canadian case law. This paper focuses on one such issue: the need for prospective plaintiffs in defamation actions to "unmask" anonymous commentators in order to be able to bring proceedings against them. It tracks the increasing use of the "Norwich order," A.K.A an order for pre-action discovery, as a means of accomplishing this objective, by examining the leading case of Warman v. Fournier and analyzing how this issue has played out in litigation to date. It also considers …

7 Things You Need To Know About: The American Court System, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

These presentation slides cover the 7 most important things you need to know about the American Court System. They cover: personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, removal, change of venue, and the steps in bringing a lawsuit.

Is The Supreme Court Disabling The Enabling Act, Or Is Shady Grove Just Another Bad Opera?, Robert J. Condlin

Robert J. Condlin

After seventy years of trying, the Supreme Court has yet to agree on whether the Rules Enabling Act articulates a one or two part standard for determining the validity of a Federal Rule. Is it enough that a Federal Rule regulates “practice and procedure,” or must it also not “abridge substantive rights”? The Enabling Act seems to require both, but the Court is not so sure, and the costs of its uncertainty are real. Among other things, litigants must guess whether the decision to apply a Federal Rule in a given case will depend upon predictable ritual, judicial power grab, …

Specificity Or Dismissal: The Improper Extension Of Rule 9(B) To Negligent Misrepresentation As A Deprivation Of Plaintiffs’ Procedural Due Process Rights, Julie A. Cook

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Updates Editor: Chapters 3, 6, 31-36, 54, 55, 77-81, Robert Bloom

Robert Bloom

No abstract provided.

Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. Rule 55 – Default Judgement, Robert Bloom

Robert Bloom

No abstract provided.

Twombly Is The Logical Extension Of The Mathews V. Eldridge Test To Discovery, Andrew Blair-Stanek

Andrew Blair-Stanek

The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly has baffled and mystified both practitioners and scholars, casting aside the well-settled rule for evaluating motions to dismiss in favor of an amorphous “plausibility” standard. This Article argues that Twombly was not revolutionary but simply part of the Court’s ever-expanding application of the familiar three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge test. Misused discovery can deprive litigants of property and liberty interests, and in some cases Mathews requires the safeguard of dismissing the complaint. This Article’s insight explains Twombly’s origins and structure, while also suggesting a source for lower courts to draw …

Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Modern Odysseus Or Classic Fraud - Fourteen Years In Prison For Civil Contempt Without A Jury Trial, Judicial Power Without Limitation, And An Examination Of The Failure Of Due Process, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure And The Establishment Clause: Exploring The Ministerial Exception, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, And The Freedom Of The Church, Gregory A. Kalscheur

Gregory A. Kalscheur, S.J.

What sort of defense is provided by the ministerial exception to employment discrimination claims? The ministerial exception bars civil courts from reviewing the decisions of religious organizations regarding the employment of their ministerial employees. While the exception itself is widely recognized by courts, there is confusion with respect to the proper characterization of the defense provided by the exception: should it be seen as a subject matter jurisdiction defense, or as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim? This Article argues that articulating the right answer to this question of civil procedure is crucial to a proper …

Updates Editor: Chapters 3, 6, 31-36, 54, 55, 77-81, Robert Bloom

Robert M. Bloom

No abstract provided.

Pearson, Iqbal, And Procedural Judicial Activism, Goutam U. Jois

Goutam U Jois

In its most recent term, the Supreme Court decided Pearson v. Callahan and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, two cases that, even at this early date, can safely be called “game-changers.” What is fairly well known is that Iqbal and Pearson, on their own terms, will hurt civil rights plaintiffs. A point that has not been explored is how the interaction between Iqbal and Pearson will also hurt civil rights plaintiffs. First, the cases threaten to catch plaintiffs on the horns of a dilemma: Iqbal says, in effect, that greater detail is required to get allegations past the motion to dismiss stage. …

Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits filed by foreign plaintiffs alleging unlawful conduct by American officials abroad, even when these cases involve matters that may have nothing to do with foreign affairs, national security, or terrorism. Rather than decide the case on its merits or dismiss it on any number of legitimate grounds, the complaint is dismissed because the plaintiff lacks a “prior substantial connection” to the United States.

I identify and critique this strange but proliferating test of standing. First, it is inconsistent with any theoretical view of …

Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Sensible Pragmatism In Federal Jurisdictional Policy, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

This article, written as part of a symposium celebrating the work of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the occasion of her fifteenth year on the Supreme Court, examines the strain of sensible legal pragmatism that informs Justice Ginsburg's writing in the fields of Civil Procedure and Federal Jurisdiction. Taking as its point of departure the Supreme Court's decision in City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, in which Ginsburg dissented, the article develops an argument against strict textualism in federal jurisdictional analysis. In its place, the article urges a purposive mode of interpretation that approaches jurisdictional text with a …

Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure. Rule 55 – Default Judgement, Robert Bloom

Robert M. Bloom

No abstract provided.

Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer

ExpressO

The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three “guideposts” set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any “civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.” Following up on this pronouncement …

Procedure, Politics And Power: The Role Of Congress, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Utilizing Statistics And Bellwether Trials In Mass Torts: What Do The Constitution And Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Permit?, R. Joseph Barton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Traditional judicial mechanisms that preserve litigants' rights to due process and a jury trial challenge courts to provide litigants their day in court in an efficient and timely manner. This challenge is made exponentially harder where the litigation concerns tortious conduct affecting a large number of persons and giving rise to latent injury. In response to the recent increase in mass tort filings, courts have sought an alternative means of adjudication-the extrapolation of a statistically average, representative plaintiff to other plaintiffs. This Note examines the problems associated with mass tort actions and how two circuit courts of appeals have implemented …

Congress's Paramount Role In Setting The Scope Of Federal Jurisdiction, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Article III presents a conundrum for scholars seeking a coherent explanation of the federal courts' role in our system of government. On the one hand, the framers set up the judiciary as a separate branch with jurisdiction over federal law and other matters of federal interest. They granted federal judges life tenure and undiminishable salary in order to preserve judicial independence from executive and legislative pressure. It is evident from these provisions that the framers saw a need for a strong national judiciary. At the same time, article III explicitly leaves to Congress the decision whether to create any lower …

National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. V. Crow Tribe Of Indians, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Valley Forge Christian College V. Americans United For Separation Of Church And State, Inc., Lewis Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Maryland V. Louisiana, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Deposit Guaranty National Bank Of Jackson, Mississippi V. Roper, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.